A A A R R R G                                                                          HOME

                                               Or Something Else?

The Courts' Massacre Of Words.

The Constitution guarantees the right of people to peacefully assemble. The operative word is "ASSEMBLE". It does not just mean "TO GATHER". The word, "ASSEMBLE", implies some intelligence in putting together something. In so doing, it requires a process of picking and choosing to include or exclude specific elements, ie,"DISCRIMINATION". The proper use of the word, &ldquodiscrimination&rdquo, means to recognize one thing from another. We want people to be able to discriminate. It is an integral part of being intelligent over other species. We want humans to discriminate between good and evil. If our educational system fails to teach the ability to discriminate, then it ceases to become anything more than a propaganda system. Jury selection itself is "discrimination". Any person who says they do not discriminate is either an idiot or a liar.

That being said, it is quite obvious that the courts' choice of the word "discrimination" in attempting to quell civil conflicts contradicts the original Constitution & is hypocritical. If ever there was a word so abused, so maligned, so improperly used, it is the word "discrimination". For a group of alleged scholars, the court and its followers ought to be horsewhipped for the misuse of this word. Why? Because the word &ldquodiscrimination&rdquo penetrates so deeply into the individual human psyche, which is a place where no government or other human belongs. The only thing that can and should be prosecuted in the courts is wrongful behavior, not what is in a person's head. As time has progressed, the word, &ldquodiscrimination&rdquo, has become a tool of alleged consciences that have no conscience , seeking to accuse, slander & character assassinate, not on behalf of any real justice, but only for the purposes of unearned reward.

Martin Luther King was correct when he said &ldquoWe should be judged by the content of our character&rdquo. That does not mean we have the right to condemn the character of others without it being accompanied by a criminal act. Nor do we have the right to judge and condemn the character of our loving Christian God as many atheists and homosexuals are doing today. Slander is untruthful accusation designed to assassinate an opponent. It is as criminal as any other malicious crime. Name-calling using words such as&ldquohomophobe&rdquo, &ldquoislamaphobe&rdquo, &ldquoxenophobe&rdquo is tantamount to slander, inviting of retorts such as &ldquoChristopobe&rdquo. It is SOCIAL VANDALISM.

What Word Should The Courts Have Used?
The word that should have been used is "DISPARITIZATION", that is if the courts truly intended to solve the problem. The courts should have recognized this problem in the mid 20th century, where upon they began to find there were two types of wrong doing:

For those who do not know what "disparate" means, it comes from the word "disparity" meaning "unequal", "parity" meaning equal.
That "disparate treatment" is a crime as long as the treatment was truly unjust, there is no question.
But "disparate impact" includes unintentional action that results in a disparity .Unintentional disparate impact is more akin to manslaughter, not deserving of a full blown punishment.No matter, the court defined a new criminal act of "discrimination" to have occurred in all cases of disparate treatment and/or disparate impact. Why the court could not simply call the crime "disparate treatment" instead of "discrimination" reveals a lack of intelligence that imposes all to stoop to its level. That word, "DISCRIMINATION", ought to be ripped from every page of every law book and replaced with the proper wording such as "DISPARATE TREATMENT", or "UNJUST DISPARITIZATION".

The road to insanity begins with lack of clarity